What is science? Definitions from Feinmans What Is Science? (1966): - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What is science? ◮ Definitions from Feinman’s “What Is Science?” (1966): long The result of a discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experiments, 02830 Project in Digital Media Engineering and not necessarily trusting the experience from the past. short Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Writing scientific papers ◮ From Feinman’s “The Uncertainty of Science” (1963): 1. Science means, sometimes, a special method of finding things out. 2. Sometimes it means the body of knowledge arising from the things found out. Jeppe Revall Frisvad 3. It may also mean the new things you can do when you have found things out, or the actual doing of new things. ◮ Point 3 is the field of technology . October 2017 ◮ Technical science is then also point 3, but sometimes mixed with point 1 or 2. References - Feinman, R. P. The Uncertainty of Science. In The Meaning of It All , Part I, pp. 1–28. Penguin Books, 1999. Public lecture given in April 1963. - Feinman, R. P. What Is Science? In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out , Chapter 8, pp. 171–188. Penguin Books, 1999. Lecture given to the National Science Teachers’ Association in April 1966. The scientific paper What is the usual structure of a scientific paper? ◮ A typical scientific paper consists of the following sections: ◮ What is a scientific paper? .. Title, author name(s), author affiliation(s) ◮ Documentation of scientific work. .. Abstract ◮ Why do scientific papers exist? 1. Introduction 2. Related work ◮ To pass our knowledge on to our descendants. 3. Theory or Method ◮ Is a scientific paper required to follow a particular structure? 4. Implementation ◮ No, but over the years a practical, recommendable structure has been found. 5. Results ◮ Must a scientific paper be a bore? 6. Discussion and/or Conclusion .. References ◮ Yes. . . No, rather not! .. Appendices It is possible to be precise even if you use an accessible, exciting style of writing. ◮ Abstract: ◮ I recommend a paper by Sand-Jensen [How to write consistently boring scientific ◮ A short summary of of the contents of the paper (preferably < 500 words). literature. Oikos 116, pp. 723–727, 2007] . ◮ Why should report hand-ins be written as scientific papers? ◮ Related work: ◮ What is known. What did you do that is different. ◮ Because practice makes perfect. And when you need to carry out a larger project (theses, articles), you must be aware of the usual structure. ◮ These two sections are rarely used in a report hand-in, but should be used in larger projects.

The structure of a scientific paper The structure of a scientific paper ◮ Discussion and/or Conclusion ◮ Introduction: ◮ Discussion: reflect on theory, implementation and results. ◮ Define and motivate the problem. ◮ Conclusion: recapitulate how the problem, which was defined in the introduction, Answer: What is the problem? Why is it interesting? was solved in the paper. ◮ Describe the objectives of the paper (put forward an hypothesis, if relevant). ◮ Self-criticism is good practice. Assess the quality of your solution. Answer: How do you intend to handle the problem? ◮ Describe future work: new applications, improvements. ◮ Theory or Method ◮ References: ◮ Describe possible solutions and decide on the best one. ◮ List of all the books, articles, papers, web pages, etc. which were used for writing the ◮ Implementation: paper. ◮ Used if the reader needs extra info to implement the theory in practice. Or if a ◮ There should be a number or other identifier for each reference such that they can particular algorithm or hardware gives an advantage (speed-up, for example). easily be referred to in the main text. ◮ Results: ◮ Some examples follow on the next slide. ◮ Describe the outcome of your efforts (e.g. measured or simulated data, model, ◮ Appendices: formula, algorithm, new comprehension.) ◮ Extra details for the reader with a special interest (code, longer derivations, ◮ Substantiate the chosen solution, test it, and present the results. simulated data, enlarged figures, etc.) Referencing styles Scientific honesty Numerical Alphabetical ◮ What is scientific misconduct? [Hansen, V. L. What is scientific misconduct? BioZoom, Vol. 9, The Cornell box [2] is a benchmark scene for calculation This special arrangement of the fibrils ensures that they Nr. 4, s. 9-14, 2006] are almost transparent [Ben71]. of diffusely reflected indirect illumination. ◮ FFP-definition (US National Academy of Sciences): ◮ Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them. ◮ Falsification: manipulating research, materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. ◮ Plagiarism: the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words Author-date without giving appropriate credit. Casein micelles only scatter light and the refractive in- ◮ Provide references if something you write comes from elsewhere. Also if you dex is η casein = 1 . 503 in the visible range [Attaie and rephrase it. Richtert 2000]. ◮ Any non-obvious “statement” must be substantiated by a reference or an Data provided by Babin et al. [2003a] have been trans- explanation. If you “heard it from somewhere”, then find the reference. lated into the volume fractions given here.

DTU Code of Honour Figures – good advise from the Scientific Computing section ◮ Use the scales that best illustrate the relation you are plotting (or graphing) in “As a student at DTU I am subject to DTU’s code of honour for your paper. Poor examples: examinations and other academic activity. I accept and support that I am governed by the high standards for accountability and academic and scientific integrity that apply to lecturers, researchers, and students at the university. I therefore show independence in my work and my exam submissions always reflect my own work, without having received unjust oral or written assistance, including by digital means. I know that I must never copy (plagiarize) other people’s ideas, thoughts, reports or articles, but I am permitted to quote and refer to them using quotation marks and source references. I also know that I am not allowed to communicate with others during a written exam.” ◮ A figure (including caption) must be self-explanatory. ◮ Q&A on “fine or problematic?”: ◮ A simple estimate of the part of the figure area that holds information should be a https://www.inside.dtu.dk/en/undervisning/regler/aereskodeks/snydscenarier value close to 1. Thesis assessment ◮ Level of difficulty ◮ Reproducibility ◮ Quality of results ◮ Quality of presentation (written and oral) ◮ Quality of references Review of scientific papers often includes assessment of ◮ Appropriateness / suitability for publication venue ◮ Novelty / originality / justification ◮ Significance / importance / magnitude of contribution ◮ Reproducibility ◮ Technical soundness ◮ Quality, depth, and completeness of content Reference Sand-Jensen, Kaj. How to write consistently boring scientific literature. Oikos 116 (5), pp. 723–727, May 2007. ◮ Clarity / quality of presentation